Pitta Gangadhar v. Chanda Kishan Rao

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY TWO PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA SECOND APPEAL NO:286 OF 2011 Appeal Under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and decree dated 31-01-20't 1 in A.S. No. 3 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial confirming judgment and decree dated 20-03-2009 in O.S.No.29 ot 2004 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial Between:

Pitta Gangadhar, S/o.Railingu Service Rl/o.Tippanna Village, Jagtial Mandal, Karimnagar District.

...APPELLANT / Defendant AND

1. Chanda Kishan Rao, S/o.Laxman Rao, aged about 54 years, Occ: Service Rt/o.H.No.7-4-240, Vidhya Nagar, Jagtial, Karimangar District.

2. Mulasapu Mahesh S/o. Rajnna , aged 31 years, Occ: Household , Thippannapet Village , Jagtial Mandal, Karimnagar District. ( Respondent No. 2 is impleaded vide Court Order dated 23-O3-2022 in l.A.No.2 I 2022 )

3. Rapella Suresh S/o. Rajaram, aged 48 years, Occ: Business, Rl,/o. H.No.'16-83/1 , lbrahimpatnam Village & Mandal, Jagtial District ( Respondent No.3 is impleaded vide Court Order daled 231O312O22 in l.A. No. 3/ 2022) ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 2011(SAMP. NO:701 OF 2011) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of all further proceedings including EP in OS No.29l2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, pending disposal of the above Second Appeal.

lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petiticn under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Pass an order of injunction restraining the Respondent/Appellant and his successor in interest lrrlulasapu Mahesh from altering the nature of property or alienating the suit schedule property being 0.04 guntas 75 square yards comprised in S.No.75 at Jagtial in any manner. lA NO: 4 OF 2022 Petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in ther affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to r;rant an order of injunction pending the appeal, restraining the Appellant ancl his successors from proceeding with construction on 0.04 guntas 75 square yards comprised in S.No.75 at Jagtial and from alienating the suit schedule property further.

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI K. JAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI SATHVIK MAKUNUR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: None appeared The Court delivered the following: Judgment

1, PSS, J SECFOND APPEAL No. 286 OF 2011 IIONOTJIIABI-,.II SMT. JTISIICE P. SITDE STIDHA SECOND IIPPIIAI-,, No. 286 Oll 20ll ORDER:

Challenging the judgment and decree dated 3l-01-2Oll passed IN A.S.No. 3 of 2OO9 by the ll-Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial, confirming the judgment and decree dated 2O-03-2009 passed in O.S.No. 29 of 2OO4 by the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff with costs, declaring him as owner and possessor of plaint schedule land bearing survey No.75 admeasuring 0-04 guntas and 75 sq.yards situated at Jagtial and further decreed to recover possession of plaint schedule property from the defendant by dispossessing the defendant and put into possession by plaintiff into peaceful possession of plaint schedule property within two months, other wise, under due process of law by court and further relief was granted to the plaintiff and issued mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the tin shed and other structures over the plaint schedule land within two months, other wise, under due process of law by the court, the defendant filed this second appeal against the concurrent findings of both the courts below. i

PSS, J SECFOND APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2011 2.

As per the proceeding sheet, appellant's counsel has not turned up for a long time. Respondent's counsel present. The present second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of both the courts below. As the appellant counsel is not evincing any interest, the matter was directed to be listed on 11-4-2022 under the caption "for dismissal". 3.

Even today also the counsel{cr the appellant has not turned up in spite of the conditional order and there is no representation when the matter listed today under the caption "for dismissal". The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is present.

4.

The counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and enjoyment. lt was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant in O.S.No. 29 of 2OO4preferred A.S.No.3 of 2OO9 on the file of the Court of ll-Additional District Judge, Jagtial. The learned ll-Additional District Judge' Jagtial, after hearing both sides, confirmed the judgment and decree dated 2O-O3-20O9 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, in O.S.No. 29 of 2004. Against the concurrent findings of both the courts below. the defendant has preferred the present second appeal. -a'--...t -- * "1. ./l l

PSs, J SECFOND APPEAL No. 286 OF 2011 5.

ln view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court has left with no other option but to dismiss this second appeal for non-prosecution. 6.

Resultantly, this second appeal stand dismissed for non-prosecution. No costJ.

9.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand disposed of.

I SD/.K.SRINIVASARAO JOINT REGISTRAR rit,t SECTION ISFFICER \ //TRUE COPY// i'+R:g**l's*l'fl :[5:i'i,',1;[','[ffi 'il:]*?.','li I 3ffi33[3il5"i^1f,fi',.l

5. Two CD CoPies

6. One SPare CoPY Kul obt / -6

HIGH COURT ,| I i i .''- DATE D:,0910612022 {\{E STATE .a ( 2 t sEP 2$2 j 'i

ORDER

6 ot 2011 SA.No.28 DISMISS ING T}IE SECOND APPEAL OUS I